I was reflecting on a passage Brother Tom highlighted in class: "Elaborate sentences are considered...inauthentic, self-involved, not committed to communication or at the very least no committed to delivering what might be easily, quickly acknowledged as the truth of a mood, say, or scene, or action." (104--Contemporary Context) It got me to thinking: is this really what our world is coming to? Instant gratification? What good is a poem if it is summarized, cut down?
And then I was wondering why this would become an issue with blank verse, when many other forms (and what some writers have done to those forms) accomodate sentences that are just as complicated. Perhaps it is because the lack of "jingles" as the introduction suggests. I know that my first understanding of a poem included patterns and rhyme schemes. It echos the rhythm of life, and has nothing cute about it, so maybe it scares people. Maybe since it has no rhymes or necessary repetition, people would not necessarily pick it out as a poem. And when people read poetry, they like to feel like they're reading poetry, perhaps with some ambiguity and intrigue. With other forms, people know where to look to find the ambiguity and intrigue, but with blank verse, they don't. But if they want to know straight out what the meaning of something is, why would they even read the poem? They're clearly missing the idea that how something is being said is just as important as what is being said.
What are your thoughts? Perhaps you can also help me out with figuring out who these "people," these blank verse smashers are....- KLe-c Feb 16, 2008
I could not disagree more with the statement you quote bashing the blank verse. Quite personally, I have an attachment with the blank verse because many of the translations of epic poems such as The Iliad, The Odyssey, and The Aeneid of Vergil are written in that way. And I love them. Sometimes I get a little ticked that they switch meters, but they have to in the translation process. But still, poems written in blank verse ARE lyrical, and they flow wonderfully. Now, just because I like poems with form does not mean that I like poems that are more concise than those in blank verse. I like poems that make you think about what exactly they are trying to say (but I have a limit; abstract, contemporary poems don't work for me). This pertains both to means in which the point is made and what exactly the point is. I want a poem that asks essential questions (I doff my hat to Fr. Bob) or addresses a moral, spiritual, or mental issue. To my understanding, with its semi-roundabout manner, the blank verse is able to do this. If we had poems that were all more blunt, there would be no creativity. Long live the blank verse.- JHe-c Feb 17, 2008
Blank verse is just as poetic style of writing as any other. It can be just as ambiguous, and have just as many different meanings and layers to the poem. Sure it may possess the same lyrical quality as a villanelle or a ballad, but that is because it is completely different form from those two and those two are different to each other as well. Although the blank verse is more straightforward and tends to be directed more towards everyday subjects as opposed to be perhaps the more vague and ethereal subject matter of other poetic styles, there are still truths in it meant to searched for. In my mind the reason blank verse poems tend to have more ordinary subjects is that blank verse tends to most closely mimic human speech and the heart beat, so it makes it suitable to talk simple things, yet at the same even in everyday life there deeper meanings and thoughts that can be found. Form does not necessarily dictate how much "meaning" is in a poem; is it solely dependent on the reader and what they take from it.- MSu-c KLe’s question, “What good is a poem if it is summarized, cut down?” is perfect. I don’t think students ever really think about this question while we complain about confusing poetry. However, much of the elusiveness is necessary for it to be the work of art that poetry is. It makes sense why society doesn’t appreciate spending the time to decipher poetry as much as they used to. Today, we are all about speed and efficiency. However, if the elaborate words and phrases were taken away, reading poetry would not be the same experience. I think that is why I like blank verse so much. Poets are freer to do whatever they please in order to get their point across in the exact words they want to use. A lot of the time it seems like there are many ways you can interpret these poems. How poets write, and what words they use, is just as important as their meaning behind them. In blank verse I feel like they have the freedom to use this creativity to their highest opportunity. - kec-c Feb 21, 2008
I especially liked when KLe said "...how something is being said is just as important as what is being said." That can never be forgotten. How something is said adds a completely new level to what is being said. It can describe how the author feels about what he or she is saying, or how the author wants the readers to react. Our lack of patience may drive us to want our conversations to be short and to the point, but it would kill the idea of poetry if applied to how poems are written. Anyone can write simple statements; the elaboration is what gives poetry its life and intrigue. It is what makes people puzzle of the words on the page, and even though we often say complexity in poetry annoys us, we actually crave it. We are attracted to things we don't understand, and if poems were all easy reads, we would not be as drawn to them. - Sha-c Feb 24, 2008
I think what the authors of our poetry book is that being complex just to be complex by making the wierdest sentances possible is the real problem. It is like what the author of our last essay wrote about difficulty in poetry. He wrote that there is nothing wrong with a poem being difficult. Many times this makes poems interesting and fun to come back to again and again. It is essential to the meaning of many poems. But when you are consciously trying to make your poems more complex, you are making your poems into puzzles more than poems. A good rule of thumb is that you shouldn't really be thinking about how difficult or complex to make your poem when you are making it. Poems are meant to be pleasing to the ear, the heart and the mind. They are ascthetic pieces of art that are meant to be pondered and reread, but they should never become sudoku.- MKo-c Feb 24, 2008 In response to KLe's question, "What good is a poem if it is summarized, cut down?” I would have to say that poetry really can't be summarized like some literature can. I don't think that there can really be effective summaries of poetry without the actual lines being laid out right next to it. So much of poetry is in the structure and language of the actual poem. The point to a poem isn't always in what the words are trying to say. It can't be broken down into individual lines that state the facts and still have the same meaning. I think that this is why we are studying the different poems of poetry. I know that I have gained a lot of appreciation for the different ways that poetry is used in the many different forms. I used to think of poetry as a bunch of rules of how to write, but really there are so many more options then I ever realized before. I think that this is what makes blank verse poetry. Although it may be missing the rhymes and repetition it is so rich of language, rhythm, and hidden meaning. You can't read an excerpt from Milton's Paradise Lost and find the meaning the first time through. As KLe said, this is the point of poetry. It is not to know the meaning straight out.- bga-c Feb 24, 2008
"I would have to say that poetry really can't be summarized like some literature can." To justify the aforementioned quote by bga, poetry is art. It is the artistic experience that makes poetry enjoyable, and vice versa, the lack of an artistic experience in poetry makes it awful. But it is precisely the lack of artistic experience from poetry that is force fed to most people through an education system that wants to cut down and summarize poetry, and by doing so, this education system unconsciously is trying to eliminate the market for poetry. But, as I said earlier, poetry is art, and experiencing poetry is experiencing art. A picture is worth a thousand words is a statement that applies to art in general, not just pictures, because art cannot simply be summed up in a few words, and since poetry is art, poetry too cannot be summed up in a few words, contrary to what many educators may believe. - TMc-c Feb 26, 2008
KLe, I completely agree with you. Although I am occasionally guilty of getting a little frustrated with a poem or a novel that contains a sentence so flowery that I can't seem to find the point at all, I definitely think reading wouldn't be half as interesting if everything was straight to the point. I mean, I'm not sure that I know anyone that would enjoy sitting around and reading a textbook full of straight-up facts all day. I'm not saying that factual, straightforward sentences are never necessary, but I'm agreeing with TMc when he says that poetry is art, and art can be created in a multitude of different ways, one of which is adding a bit of excitement to a sentence that might dance around the point of the poem or story a bit. It's not an easy task to draw people's interest when writing a poem or a piece of literature, and sometimes a good, flowery sentence can help to accomplish that. - MRo-c Feb 26, 2008
I will say that I am one of those blank verse haters who doesn't like reading the complicated stuff. Whether I'm impatient or stubborn is definetly possible, but I also think it's a product of how my mind works. When a problem comes at me I like to break it down into smaller parts, see how I can use them to get the end goal, and then from there I work through and arrive at an answer. This is the problem solving skills I have been taught since I was a kid. That's why poetry can present such a problem to me because I need to learn to slow down and accept that there is no right answer to find. Really I think I'm ok with this because I'm not like desperate for one thing the poem is about, it really just doesn't interest me as much. Because of my affinity for objective, solvable problems I enjoy those more because I'm seeking out an anwer that exists. In poetry this is really never the case. That's why this year I feel like I'm starting from scratch and slowly building an appreciation for poetry.- mka-c Feb 26, 2008
I don't think this criticism is aimed at the blank verse writers or writers that required interpretation when reading their works; I think is more aimed at writers who use large vocabularies and difficult sentence structures and patterns just for the sake of making their works more difficult. There is nothing wrong with inserting symbolism and hidden motifs into one's writing; however, to insert obscure vocabulary and use reverse sentence structure--Alexander Pope--is wholly unnecessary. A sentence does not need to be confusing to read to have deeper meaning: two perfect examples of this simple, meaningful writing are Invisible Man and haikus. Both can be read and understood at a literal sense quite easily; however, it takes more readings and analysis to uncovering their deeper meanings. Compare this to the piece by Pope: it takes several readings of a line just to interpret its literal meaning. This excessive difficulty is what needs to be eliminated, not the figurative language that makes reading interesting. - dsU-c Feb 27, 2008
Boy, you know, I often get the feeling that Strand and Boland don't have the foggiest notion of what they are talking about. They clearly love poetry, but they really don't seem to get it very well. First of all, I don't think that the decline in blank verse has anything to do with our "rejection of elaboration." To be honest, I think part of the problem might be the confusion of the American populace. I for one can't keep blank verse straight from free verse, and I do my best to stay away from free verse. For that reason, I just stay away from both of them, even though I find the blank verse structure very comforting, even if it is unrhymed. Secondly, I don't think you can blame our culture on the trends of poetry. As we have often said, and as Shepherd pointed out, poetry has never been in a vogue (I think it is hilarious to picture a large throng of people standing outside the bookstore waiting for the latest collection of Robert Frost to arrive as they did for the seventh Harry Potter book). Poets don't pander to an audience; they write the way they want to. If Boland and Strand really think that popular culture can influence poetry, then they admit that poets write for the money. That would be the most tremendous faux pas that any poetry editor could make. And if poets have left the blank verse, it is because they don't have fun with it anymore. It seems that poets want to push the boundaries however they can. When they have, they move on. At the time, blank verse was a new step forward. But after the novelty had exhausted itself, the form was not good enough to support itself. Poets went back to the staples of poetry - sonnets, ballads, etc. - until they could go in a new direction. I think that that brevity is the new direction. Anyone can speak volumes in hundreds of words - Polonius is an easy part to play. The trick is to see how much you can cram into a handful of words. It isn't the American public that changed the style; blame the poets! - TRu-c Feb 27, 2008
Some of my personal favorite pieces of literature--poetry--are written in blank verse: Shapespeare, anyone? Robert Frost? Love them. Also, as jhe stated, what makes many of the great Greek and Roman classics so great is the fact that they are written in blank verse. They do not have that sing-songy rhyme, but still maintain particular meter that is memorable when read aloud. That is one of the reasons why I like blank verse--it is not so much blank (as poetry being all over the place), but it does have a particular rhythm and structure.
In response to MRo, who finds herself "occasionally guilty of getting a little frustrated with a poem or a novel that contains a sentence so flowery that I can't seem to find the point at all," I find that more to be true of free verse rather than blank verse. When I think of free verse, I immediately flash back to Walt Whitman and "Leaves of Grass." Personally, I greatly enjoyed this work, but others found it at times frustrating and pointless due to the intricate description in detail. It is often more difficult to approach free verse because it literally does have an unbound structure--lines can be as long or short as the author deems; at least blank verse has the set meter--iambic pentameter--which makes reading such poems seem more orderly and less distracting to some readers. - AWr-c Feb 27, 2008
In response to TRu and his opinion on the questionability of the American comprehension, it made me think a little more about the adequecy of modern poetry as well. When we wrote our villanelles and sestinas, I remember how difficult it was to say exactly what it was I wanted to say in the right amount of syllables ending with a word that rhymed with the word that ends the thought two lines down and so forth in an equally confusing manner. Obviously, since the origin of the blank verse, poets have mastered, perfected, and tweaked the form to make beautiful poetry. But I can't help but think that the original deviation from seriously structured poetry, was somewhat of a cop out! Am I really wrong to think this? It just seems that, despite those who have used it as a challenge and an adantage and written extremely eloquent pieces, that this structure possibly could have been created because many aspiring poets couldn't grasp a stricter form. What are your thoughts? - kco-c
I want to know who does all of this "considering" of these elabotate sentences, first of all. If you look at page 104 and you read through that paragraph, it's all "OUR preference, OUR mistrust, OUR rejection." We are included in the our, that means we're a part of a "we." Just curious, when did I give my consent to this? It's like signing a legal document. They should not be able to represent a "we" if "we" did not ever give their consent to it. The authors of this book have no jurisdiction over my thoughts and opinions. They should not be saying our, unless they're talking to people whom they know are in agreeance with them. Now, maybe I'm taking this a little to overboard. I know that they're making a generalization about our society and our generation perhaps, but I'm still a little upset by this. Many of us here don't agree with that statement, which is frustrating to see, but at the same time at least it gives rise to good discussion.- AGe-c Feb 28, 2008
Haha, well, Kent, I'm sorta guilty there. I'm not that fond of blank verse as a form of poetry myself. I like a lot of the poems, don't get me wrong, but i don't think some of it fits quite well into the umbrella of real poetry: just decorated, elaborate prose, or well written sililoquies, or something, but not 'blank verse poetry'. I dunno, I wouldn't say that these are bad for being hard to understand, I think that finding the meaning of a poem is not the purpose of the poem; you could just write the meaning plainly like the puritans loved, and be done with it. The whole point of poetry is making it artful though, and that I can appreciate. And I can appreaciate that this can be done without a rigid or slightly more flexible structure, but I think that when you get to a point where there's no longer a recongnizeable structure, no matter how nice the words sound, and not matter how well written and well-expressed a piece may be, it's good prose, not poetry. - AZU-C Feb 28, 2008
I have a few things to say about this one, so I'll try to keep it to the point.
First of all, the quote is a sentiment of the general populous today on what is and isn't necessary. People today generally don't like it when they have to read overly elaborate writing. That's just the way it is today. The quote is not the personal view of Strand and Boland.
Secondly, all authors should avoid using mandarin speech. The point isn't to make the writing as fancy and elaborate as possible, the point is to get a message across. Yes, sometimes that requires some fancy sentence structure, but an author should not purposefully make it difficult to read. Otherwise, it is difficult to read. Plain and simple, a work of art loses its meaning if no one can decipher it.
Next, I disagree with TRu. Poets don't just pull new forms out of nowhere. Nor do they write about whatever the heck they want. They are human beings. As such, they are just as influenced by the culture around them as the rest of us are. You are right in saying the poet doesn't write to sell, but that doesn't mean they never respond to the world around them. If they didn't then we would never have great poems like The Colonel.
Just two more things I think. I hope I don't need to remind you all that poetry does not need to be long. You do not need all the elaborate structure to have a good poem. For evidence I present Gwendolyn Brooks' We Real Cool. That is not to say that elaborate poems aren't good. It's just that there are other options.
Finally, the our used by Strand and Boland is the general our of todays population. If you disagree, I present you with the challenge of finding someone that walks around speaking like they are straight out of a Jane Austen novel. We just don't talk like that today, nor do we write like that. Therefore, we must prefer to speak and write more plainly. The use of our in this case is not meant as an insult. However, I would venture to think that all of us have been guilty of hating elaborate writing at one point or another.
Okay, I'm done. Jeez I can't believe I had that much to say. - PMi-c Mar 3, 2008
I have to say that when writing starts to ramble, you lose me. If a writer keeps going and going and going I'm going to be drawn away from where they were going with it. I understand why writers want to add description, detail, etc., but too much of it and the point they are trying to get across or the story they want to tell will get lost. But in instances like these, maybe we as readers should consider that the importance for those writers is there long, flowery, and detailed sentences. They may write to get those details out on paper because that is what they enjoy about writing. They might not be about stories and messages. Even if this is there objective in writing, we may not know if it is or not. There is no way to really tell unless an author states or is known for creating long, melodic sentences. So as readers we must be patient and look at literature at both angles. As humans we look for reasoning and meaning behind things, it's our nature. However, literature, ecspecially poetry, may be an instance where we may just need to accept that we wont be able to find these meanings and reasons.- aja-c Mar 12, 2008
Poetry is only really worth reading if you actually read it, and read it closely, because otherwise we wouldn't be able to get into what the poet is actually trying to say. It is an art of words, and summing it up would be the same as taking only half of the colors out of a painting, and showing it to someone. You can't really see what the painting is about if you take away half of the color. We should treat poetry the same. - jko-c Mar 13, 2008
And then I was wondering why this would become an issue with blank verse, when many other forms (and what some writers have done to those forms) accomodate sentences that are just as complicated. Perhaps it is because the lack of "jingles" as the introduction suggests. I know that my first understanding of a poem included patterns and rhyme schemes. It echos the rhythm of life, and has nothing cute about it, so maybe it scares people. Maybe since it has no rhymes or necessary repetition, people would not necessarily pick it out as a poem. And when people read poetry, they like to feel like they're reading poetry, perhaps with some ambiguity and intrigue. With other forms, people know where to look to find the ambiguity and intrigue, but with blank verse, they don't. But if they want to know straight out what the meaning of something is, why would they even read the poem? They're clearly missing the idea that how something is being said is just as important as what is being said.
What are your thoughts? Perhaps you can also help me out with figuring out who these "people," these blank verse smashers are....-
I could not disagree more with the statement you quote bashing the blank verse. Quite personally, I have an attachment with the blank verse because many of the translations of epic poems such as The Iliad, The Odyssey, and The Aeneid of Vergil are written in that way. And I love them. Sometimes I get a little ticked that they switch meters, but they have to in the translation process. But still, poems written in blank verse ARE lyrical, and they flow wonderfully. Now, just because I like poems with form does not mean that I like poems that are more concise than those in blank verse. I like poems that make you think about what exactly they are trying to say (but I have a limit; abstract, contemporary poems don't work for me). This pertains both to means in which the point is made and what exactly the point is. I want a poem that asks essential questions (I doff my hat to Fr. Bob) or addresses a moral, spiritual, or mental issue. To my understanding, with its semi-roundabout manner, the blank verse is able to do this. If we had poems that were all more blunt, there would be no creativity. Long live the blank verse.-
Blank verse is just as poetic style of writing as any other. It can be just as ambiguous, and have just as many different meanings and layers to the poem. Sure it may possess the same lyrical quality as a villanelle or a ballad, but that is because it is completely different form from those two and those two are different to each other as well. Although the blank verse is more straightforward and tends to be directed more towards everyday subjects as opposed to be perhaps the more vague and ethereal subject matter of other poetic styles, there are still truths in it meant to searched for. In my mind the reason blank verse poems tend to have more ordinary subjects is that blank verse tends to most closely mimic human speech and the heart beat, so it makes it suitable to talk simple things, yet at the same even in everyday life there deeper meanings and thoughts that can be found. Form does not necessarily dictate how much "meaning" is in a poem; is it solely dependent on the reader and what they take from it.-
KLe’s question, “What good is a poem if it is summarized, cut down?” is perfect. I don’t think students ever really think about this question while we complain about confusing poetry. However, much of the elusiveness is necessary for it to be the work of art that poetry is. It makes sense why society doesn’t appreciate spending the time to decipher poetry as much as they used to. Today, we are all about speed and efficiency. However, if the elaborate words and phrases were taken away, reading poetry would not be the same experience.
I think that is why I like blank verse so much. Poets are freer to do whatever they please in order to get their point across in the exact words they want to use. A lot of the time it seems like there are many ways you can interpret these poems. How poets write, and what words they use, is just as important as their meaning behind them. In blank verse I feel like they have the freedom to use this creativity to their highest opportunity. -
I especially liked when KLe said "...how something is being said is just as important as what is being said." That can never be forgotten. How something is said adds a completely new level to what is being said. It can describe how the author feels about what he or she is saying, or how the author wants the readers to react. Our lack of patience may drive us to want our conversations to be short and to the point, but it would kill the idea of poetry if applied to how poems are written. Anyone can write simple statements; the elaboration is what gives poetry its life and intrigue. It is what makes people puzzle of the words on the page, and even though we often say complexity in poetry annoys us, we actually crave it. We are attracted to things we don't understand, and if poems were all easy reads, we would not be as drawn to them. -
I think what the authors of our poetry book is that being complex just to be complex by making the wierdest sentances possible is the real problem. It is like what the author of our last essay wrote about difficulty in poetry. He wrote that there is nothing wrong with a poem being difficult. Many times this makes poems interesting and fun to come back to again and again. It is essential to the meaning of many poems. But when you are consciously trying to make your poems more complex, you are making your poems into puzzles more than poems. A good rule of thumb is that you shouldn't really be thinking about how difficult or complex to make your poem when you are making it. Poems are meant to be pleasing to the ear, the heart and the mind. They are ascthetic pieces of art that are meant to be pondered and reread, but they should never become sudoku.-
In response to KLe's question, "What good is a poem if it is summarized, cut down?” I would have to say that poetry really can't be summarized like some literature can. I don't think that there can really be effective summaries of poetry without the actual lines being laid out right next to it. So much of poetry is in the structure and language of the actual poem. The point to a poem isn't always in what the words are trying to say. It can't be broken down into individual lines that state the facts and still have the same meaning. I think that this is why we are studying the different poems of poetry. I know that I have gained a lot of appreciation for the different ways that poetry is used in the many different forms. I used to think of poetry as a bunch of rules of how to write, but really there are so many more options then I ever realized before. I think that this is what makes blank verse poetry. Although it may be missing the rhymes and repetition it is so rich of language, rhythm, and hidden meaning. You can't read an excerpt from Milton's Paradise Lost and find the meaning the first time through. As KLe said, this is the point of poetry. It is not to know the meaning straight out.-
"I would have to say that poetry really can't be summarized like some literature can." To justify the aforementioned quote by bga, poetry is art. It is the artistic experience that makes poetry enjoyable, and vice versa, the lack of an artistic experience in poetry makes it awful. But it is precisely the lack of artistic experience from poetry that is force fed to most people through an education system that wants to cut down and summarize poetry, and by doing so, this education system unconsciously is trying to eliminate the market for poetry. But, as I said earlier, poetry is art, and experiencing poetry is experiencing art. A picture is worth a thousand words is a statement that applies to art in general, not just pictures, because art cannot simply be summed up in a few words, and since poetry is art, poetry too cannot be summed up in a few words, contrary to what many educators may believe. -
KLe, I completely agree with you. Although I am occasionally guilty of getting a little frustrated with a poem or a novel that contains a sentence so flowery that I can't seem to find the point at all, I definitely think reading wouldn't be half as interesting if everything was straight to the point. I mean, I'm not sure that I know anyone that would enjoy sitting around and reading a textbook full of straight-up facts all day. I'm not saying that factual, straightforward sentences are never necessary, but I'm agreeing with TMc when he says that poetry is art, and art can be created in a multitude of different ways, one of which is adding a bit of excitement to a sentence that might dance around the point of the poem or story a bit. It's not an easy task to draw people's interest when writing a poem or a piece of literature, and sometimes a good, flowery sentence can help to accomplish that.
-
I will say that I am one of those blank verse haters who doesn't like reading the complicated stuff. Whether I'm impatient or stubborn is definetly possible, but I also think it's a product of how my mind works. When a problem comes at me I like to break it down into smaller parts, see how I can use them to get the end goal, and then from there I work through and arrive at an answer. This is the problem solving skills I have been taught since I was a kid. That's why poetry can present such a problem to me because I need to learn to slow down and accept that there is no right answer to find. Really I think I'm ok with this because I'm not like desperate for one thing the poem is about, it really just doesn't interest me as much. Because of my affinity for objective, solvable problems I enjoy those more because I'm seeking out an anwer that exists. In poetry this is really never the case. That's why this year I feel like I'm starting from scratch and slowly building an appreciation for poetry.-
I don't think this criticism is aimed at the blank verse writers or writers that required interpretation when reading their works; I think is more aimed at writers who use large vocabularies and difficult sentence structures and patterns just for the sake of making their works more difficult. There is nothing wrong with inserting symbolism and hidden motifs into one's writing; however, to insert obscure vocabulary and use reverse sentence structure--Alexander Pope--is wholly unnecessary. A sentence does not need to be confusing to read to have deeper meaning: two perfect examples of this simple, meaningful writing are Invisible Man and haikus. Both can be read and understood at a literal sense quite easily; however, it takes more readings and analysis to uncovering their deeper meanings. Compare this to the piece by Pope: it takes several readings of a line just to interpret its literal meaning. This excessive difficulty is what needs to be eliminated, not the figurative language that makes reading interesting.
-
Boy, you know, I often get the feeling that Strand and Boland don't have the foggiest notion of what they are talking about. They clearly love poetry, but they really don't seem to get it very well. First of all, I don't think that the decline in blank verse has anything to do with our "rejection of elaboration." To be honest, I think part of the problem might be the confusion of the American populace. I for one can't keep blank verse straight from free verse, and I do my best to stay away from free verse. For that reason, I just stay away from both of them, even though I find the blank verse structure very comforting, even if it is unrhymed. Secondly, I don't think you can blame our culture on the trends of poetry. As we have often said, and as Shepherd pointed out, poetry has never been in a vogue (I think it is hilarious to picture a large throng of people standing outside the bookstore waiting for the latest collection of Robert Frost to arrive as they did for the seventh Harry Potter book). Poets don't pander to an audience; they write the way they want to. If Boland and Strand really think that popular culture can influence poetry, then they admit that poets write for the money. That would be the most tremendous faux pas that any poetry editor could make. And if poets have left the blank verse, it is because they don't have fun with it anymore. It seems that poets want to push the boundaries however they can. When they have, they move on. At the time, blank verse was a new step forward. But after the novelty had exhausted itself, the form was not good enough to support itself. Poets went back to the staples of poetry - sonnets, ballads, etc. - until they could go in a new direction. I think that that brevity is the new direction. Anyone can speak volumes in hundreds of words - Polonius is an easy part to play. The trick is to see how much you can cram into a handful of words. It isn't the American public that changed the style; blame the poets! -
Some of my personal favorite pieces of literature--poetry--are written in blank verse: Shapespeare, anyone? Robert Frost? Love them. Also, as jhe stated, what makes many of the great Greek and Roman classics so great is the fact that they are written in blank verse. They do not have that sing-songy rhyme, but still maintain particular meter that is memorable when read aloud. That is one of the reasons why I like blank verse--it is not so much blank (as poetry being all over the place), but it does have a particular rhythm and structure.
In response to MRo, who finds herself "occasionally guilty of getting a little frustrated with a poem or a novel that contains a sentence so flowery that I can't seem to find the point at all," I find that more to be true of free verse rather than blank verse. When I think of free verse, I immediately flash back to Walt Whitman and "Leaves of Grass." Personally, I greatly enjoyed this work, but others found it at times frustrating and pointless due to the intricate description in detail. It is often more difficult to approach free verse because it literally does have an unbound structure--lines can be as long or short as the author deems; at least blank verse has the set meter--iambic pentameter--which makes reading such poems seem more orderly and less distracting to some readers. -
In response to TRu and his opinion on the questionability of the American comprehension, it made me think a little more about the adequecy of modern poetry as well. When we wrote our villanelles and sestinas, I remember how difficult it was to say exactly what it was I wanted to say in the right amount of syllables ending with a word that rhymed with the word that ends the thought two lines down and so forth in an equally confusing manner. Obviously, since the origin of the blank verse, poets have mastered, perfected, and tweaked the form to make beautiful poetry. But I can't help but think that the original deviation from seriously structured poetry, was somewhat of a cop out! Am I really wrong to think this? It just seems that, despite those who have used it as a challenge and an adantage and written extremely eloquent pieces, that this structure possibly could have been created because many aspiring poets couldn't grasp a stricter form. What are your thoughts? -
I want to know who does all of this "considering" of these elabotate sentences, first of all. If you look at page 104 and you read through that paragraph, it's all "OUR preference, OUR mistrust, OUR rejection." We are included in the our, that means we're a part of a "we." Just curious, when did I give my consent to this? It's like signing a legal document. They should not be able to represent a "we" if "we" did not ever give their consent to it. The authors of this book have no jurisdiction over my thoughts and opinions. They should not be saying our, unless they're talking to people whom they know are in agreeance with them. Now, maybe I'm taking this a little to overboard. I know that they're making a generalization about our society and our generation perhaps, but I'm still a little upset by this. Many of us here don't agree with that statement, which is frustrating to see, but at the same time at least it gives rise to good discussion.-
Haha, well, Kent, I'm sorta guilty there. I'm not that fond of blank verse as a form of poetry myself. I like a lot of the poems, don't get me wrong, but i don't think some of it fits quite well into the umbrella of real poetry: just decorated, elaborate prose, or well written sililoquies, or something, but not 'blank verse poetry'. I dunno, I wouldn't say that these are bad for being hard to understand, I think that finding the meaning of a poem is not the purpose of the poem; you could just write the meaning plainly like the puritans loved, and be done with it. The whole point of poetry is making it artful though, and that I can appreciate. And I can appreaciate that this can be done without a rigid or slightly more flexible structure, but I think that when you get to a point where there's no longer a recongnizeable structure, no matter how nice the words sound, and not matter how well written and well-expressed a piece may be, it's good prose, not poetry. -
I have a few things to say about this one, so I'll try to keep it to the point.
First of all, the quote is a sentiment of the general populous today on what is and isn't necessary. People today generally don't like it when they have to read overly elaborate writing. That's just the way it is today. The quote is not the personal view of Strand and Boland.
Secondly, all authors should avoid using mandarin speech. The point isn't to make the writing as fancy and elaborate as possible, the point is to get a message across. Yes, sometimes that requires some fancy sentence structure, but an author should not purposefully make it difficult to read. Otherwise, it is difficult to read. Plain and simple, a work of art loses its meaning if no one can decipher it.
Next, I disagree with TRu. Poets don't just pull new forms out of nowhere. Nor do they write about whatever the heck they want. They are human beings. As such, they are just as influenced by the culture around them as the rest of us are. You are right in saying the poet doesn't write to sell, but that doesn't mean they never respond to the world around them. If they didn't then we would never have great poems like The Colonel.
Just two more things I think. I hope I don't need to remind you all that poetry does not need to be long. You do not need all the elaborate structure to have a good poem. For evidence I present Gwendolyn Brooks' We Real Cool. That is not to say that elaborate poems aren't good. It's just that there are other options.
Finally, the our used by Strand and Boland is the general our of todays population. If you disagree, I present you with the challenge of finding someone that walks around speaking like they are straight out of a Jane Austen novel. We just don't talk like that today, nor do we write like that. Therefore, we must prefer to speak and write more plainly. The use of our in this case is not meant as an insult. However, I would venture to think that all of us have been guilty of hating elaborate writing at one point or another.
Okay, I'm done. Jeez I can't believe I had that much to say. -
I have to say that when writing starts to ramble, you lose me. If a writer keeps going and going and going I'm going to be drawn away from where they were going with it. I understand why writers want to add description, detail, etc., but too much of it and the point they are trying to get across or the story they want to tell will get lost. But in instances like these, maybe we as readers should consider that the importance for those writers is there long, flowery, and detailed sentences. They may write to get those details out on paper because that is what they enjoy about writing. They might not be about stories and messages. Even if this is there objective in writing, we may not know if it is or not. There is no way to really tell unless an author states or is known for creating long, melodic sentences. So as readers we must be patient and look at literature at both angles. As humans we look for reasoning and meaning behind things, it's our nature. However, literature, ecspecially poetry, may be an instance where we may just need to accept that we wont be able to find these meanings and reasons.-
Poetry is only really worth reading if you actually read it, and read it closely, because otherwise we wouldn't be able to get into what the poet is actually trying to say. It is an art of words, and summing it up would be the same as taking only half of the colors out of a painting, and showing it to someone. You can't really see what the painting is about if you take away half of the color. We should treat poetry the same.
-